o want to think about the possibility that a
release would not come from trunk. Maybe a smaller group of contributors
can prepare something for release on a branch. In the very centralized
development process that I see, the core maintainers are taking a lot of
pressure in the ramp up to a release. This could be distributed.
It's just an idea. It works for us.
--
Andy Singleton
Founder/CEO, Assembla Online: http://www.assembla.com
Phone: 781-328-2241
Skype: andysingleton
ial bounty money available for the next set of fixes to either
merge or move. I'm in.
I would like to be able to make a workflow recommendation that makes
subversion relevant for a fast growing class of development projects.
--
Andy Singleton
Founder/CEO, Assembla Online: http://www.assembla.com
Phone: 781-328-2241
Skype: andysingleton
diate merge target:
integrate A->B as
rN: copy B->A_integration
rN+1: merge A->A_integration
rN+x: ... various changes on A_integration
rN+y: merge A_integration->B
rN+y+1: delete A_integration
These checks become more complicated, requires
naming conventions for the int
quot;. People plug in new ones when they need new ones. That
would work for subversion.
On 4/17/2012 2:29 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 17.04.2012 18:40, Andy Singleton wrote:
It sounds like there is a clear choice for the first release of
Julian's Symmetric Merge project:
1) Add "symm
that if you are trying to cram everything into one merge command.
On 4/17/2012 12:19 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Andy Singleton wrote:
On 4/17/2012 11:38 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Julian Foad
wrote:
I have written out how I think a lar
ypicks? This will give us a easy-to-use merge which halts if it
finds cherrypicks or subtree merginfo, and which could be confused if
there are merges through a third branch. However, it will be a nice
improvement of the typical case where you are moving things between
trunk and a feature branch.
--
Andy Singleton
Assembla
33 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 02.12.2011 05:12, Andy Singleton wrote:
Shortly we will be putting up clients with new open source features
that we have been working on, like EasySVN and Newmerge. If you want
to use your seniority to turn this sort of thing out of the Apache
community, then I guess
6 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Andy Singleton wrote:
Here is a patch to update the Binary Package page with links to client
packages. This will make it easier for users to upgrade to 1.7.
This patch is an update to
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
This patch
Here is a patch to update the Binary Package page with links to client
packages. This will make it easier for users to upgrade to 1.7.
This patch is an update to
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
This patch keeps the links in alphabetical order.
BASIC FEATURES
* No registration is r
Here is a patch to update the Binary Package page with links to client
packages. This will make it easier for users to upgrade to 1.7.
This patch is an update to
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
This patch keeps the links in alphabetical order.
BASIC FEATURES
* No registration is r
about the core algorithm used in
merge to
critique these suggestions and point to places in the code or
documentation?
--
Andy Singleton
Founder/CEO, Assembla Online: http://www.assembla.com
Phone: 781-328-2241
Skype: andysingleton
e "special"
re-integrate is it ensures the reintegration will not generate any merge
conflicts - neither physical, nor semantic (since we assume the branch
has been reviewed and tested).
On Mon, 2011-07-18, Paul Burba wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011, Andy Singleton wrote:
[...]
Ma
cit merges.
EXPERTISE
Who on this list knows enough about the core algorithm used in merge to
critique these suggestions and point to places in the code or
documentation?
--
Andy Singleton
Founder/CEO, Assembla Online: http://www.assembla.com
Phone: 781-328-2241
Skype: andysingleton
To start the discussion, I will refer to this blog article by Mark Phippard:
http://blogs.collab.net/subversion/2008/07/subversion-merg/
I found the article to be a good overview of the issues. I think that we
need help from Mark. On the other hand, I have seen that Mark sometimes
makes disc
support because you think they are not important.
Users of Subversion before we had merge tracking, and users of
Subversion since we have had merge tracking have made it very clear
that these options are important to them. You cannot come up with a
new merge design that does not a
On 7/12/2011 12:25 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Andy Singleton wrote:
Mark, I agree with you that the existing merge will work better if we apply
some restrictions. I can see that the project is already going that way,
and maybe it is good to continue in that
On 7/12/2011 11:54 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Andy Singleton wrote:
I don't think that we will need to force anyone to give up the old merge.
If and when the newmerge is better, they will migrate on their own. I
think merge is an important concern for
On 7/12/2011 11:43 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:29:57AM -0400, Andy Singleton wrote:
If you want to keep it as a mergeable branch (clearly relevant),
then maybe it's better just to add on as "svn newmerge" from the
beginning. If that approach is re
ll the same
issues have to be addressed. If we can force users to do something,
then I am not sure we need a new command. We can just have a way to
not allow users to use the features of existing merge that we do not
want them to use. The existing merge command already supports the
proposed simple
side "copy + delete" operation.
* Adding a "clone" and foreign merge operations in Web applications and
clients that work with existing svn server software.
--
Andy Singleton
oblem with tracking new edits on the
merged working copy.
On 7/11/2011 2:42 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Andy Singleton wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 13:57:58 -0400:
Yes, the "cyclic merge" problem is a big one, and along with the
tree change problem, it accounts for most of the frustrat
think
more about this case, and whether we should track individual commits
that were merged. That could be an extension.
On 7/11/2011 12:51 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 07/11/2011 11:46 AM, Andy Singleton wrote:
Many developers are moving from Subversion to other SCM systems that have
remove the subtree options, and moving to the
extensible merginfo format. It will be useful to get advice about this
from experienced team members.
--
Andy Singleton
Founder/CEO, Assembla: http://www.assembla.com
Phone: 781-328-2241
Skype: andysingleton
23 matches
Mail list logo
